[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Roger L. Costello wrote:
> If XML, Cellular Automata, and all of nature can produce tremendous
> complexity with minimal complicatedness, then surely XSLT 2.0,
> XPath 2.0, XML Schemas 2.0, etc should be able to increase their
> complexity-generating-capability with decreased complicatedness.
> Yes?
No. Or, not necessarily. Remember that XSLT, XPath, etc. are
languages. Thus, they should be measured on their expressiveness and ease of
use -- not just on "complicatedness." Often, we complicate our languages
with words, idioms, etc. that are short-hands for or replacements for other
combinations of words. We do this because it makes it easier to express what
our intent is. For instance, we still talk about concepts like "speed",
"acceleration" etc. when, if the calculus guys had their way, we'd probably
be mumbling about first and second derivatives, etc... English is more
"complicated" then it needs to be in theory, but often the added
"complicatedness" is actually useful.
Also, consider that in V2.0 of the languages you define, we might
actually see an increase of "complicatedness" that is just setting us up for
a reduction in "complicatedness" in V3.0... As with evolution and sailing,
we often wander towards our goals rather than progressing to them in a
straight line.
Beware trying to convert concept into reality. It isn't always
useful.
bob wyman
|
